The Paraphilias Forum is now closed for new posts. It is against the Forum Rules to discuss paraphilias as the main topic of a post anywhere at PsychForums.

================================================

You are entering a forum that contains discussions of a sexual nature, some of which are explicit. The topics discussed may be offensive to some people. Please be aware of this before entering this forum.

This forum is intended to be a place where people can support each other in finding healing and healthy ways of functioning. Discussions that promote illegal activity will not be tolerated. Please note that this forum is moderated, and people who are found to be using this forum for inappropriate purposes will be banned. Psychforums works hard to ensure that this forum is law abiding. Moderators will report evidence of illegal activity to the police.

The team carried out hundreds of tests exposing men to female adult and child images. 95% exhibited arousal to the female adult images.

A staggering 88.7% exhibited arousal to the female child (less than 12 years old) images.

Prior to the study, 80% of the participants claimed to have no attraction to children and all of them had no history of illegal or legal youth attracted behavior.

For credibility information about this study, simply type in the citation info from the beginning of this post. The full report is quite detailed and it explains the many controls that were in place to ensure the result were accurate.

No similar studies have been conducted since this one because people know the results will be the same and they don't want further proof about how common attraction to preteens is.

I know that many people are going to post and say, “you have nothing to worry about, those studies are wrong, it’s rare, I don’t know anyone attracted to preteens”… but denying something that’s controversial to not deny means nothing. That would be like asking a thief if he steals, of course he’s going to say no. This is why objective studies are much more meaningful than adamant, violent denial rants. I haven’t found ANY objective, fair studies that support the idea that preteen-attraction is rare or that all preteen-attracted adults are crazy monster (like the media says).

It seems as though all the media’s stereotypes are based off prisoner studies. That would be like making generalizations about the prevalence and manner of same-age (normal) attraction based off ONLY interviewing convicted rapists. Like saying, ALL free same-age attracted adults with no criminal records will rape because all convicted rapists rape. I don’t understand why most people think prison studies (a small segment of the population) are more important than general population studies (like the Kent State one) when studying preteen-attraction.

It seems like most men are secretly attracted to preteen girls, but they go around telling people they're not so they can meet some false idea of what a few have deemed as “normal”. Many people think that if they just act crazy (talk about wanting to kill/torture anyone attracted to preteen girls) people will believe they’re “normal” and never suspect that they actual have the same feelings they pretend to condemn. But, I’ve known a lot of liars, and this kind of response (overly defensive) is very common among people that lie.

It seems as though the voice of a few appears to be the voice of the majority only because the majority is silent and secretive about their attraction. 9 out of every 10 men are attracted to preteen girls, but most men will never openly divulge this secret to anyone.

I don’t understand? I though attraction to preteens was supposed to be rare? What’s going on? Should I be concerned? I have young relatives. Should I recommend home-school for them?

Or maybe these media stereotypes are wrong? Maybe having a preteen attraction is very common, but is also typically harmless, that is, most humans have self-control? .... News people are always saying everyone with an attraction rapes. But if that were true, wouldn’t there be 2 billion child rapists (6.7 billion (world population)*.5 (% male)*.7 (% adult) *.9 (% attracted to under 12).

The media’s assumptions are based off unfair prison studies, so I’m inclined to believe that they’re wrong. I’m inclined to believe that preteen attraction is generally harmless and preteen-attracted adults are not monsters..but I don’t know? What do you-all think? Should we be concerned or are preteen-attracted adults being falsely demonized?

ADVERTISEMENT

According to this, less than 30% show such responses and this seems to accord with other studies. The Griesemer theory would account for this and it probably would show up as stronger in the young (e.g. students) rather than those older.

When you posted, the full article, I began to wonder if I was mistaken. The original data I read cited the article. However, after further analysis, I see where the results from the article I read came from.

The original article (your link) purposely reports the results in a manner that supports what society wants to believe.

“Over 1/4 of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest or exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.”

However, “Eighty subjects completed the study”.

And Only “9 exhibited no arousal to the female child slides.” … stated differently, one could say 71 exhibited arousal to the preteen girl images.

This means that 71/80 (88.7%) exhibited arousal to the female child slides. Many may have been just slightly less than the arousal they exhibited to the female adult.

So basically

Over 1/4 (32.5% in fact) of the subjects exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equalled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.

The results for part of the study were INVERTED by stating those that were not aroused. This was an effort to hide the nature of the findings. In addition, 3.7% of the subjects were removed from the results because they admitted to preteen-attracted behavior.

Ooh and as for trolling. The part about being worried about rape epidemics was sarcasm. My point was that obviously these negative stereotypes about most preteen-attracted adults being crazy monsters can NOT be true. These stereotypes have no reliable factual basis (They're based off prison studies, which to not represent the majority of society. This is why this study is compelling. It studies the general population rather than prisoners). Even if we used 25% instead of 90% these malicious, false stereotypes cannot be true.

Blben wrote:Wow one study at Kent University represents 90% of men in the world? WOW

Oh my god I can't even respond to this without laughing my butt off!

Yea, it’s probably closer to 100% .. lol jk

Seriously though, I prefer to rely on NONconvict population peer reviewed scientific studies (even if small) because ….

1. Prison population studies are NOT accurate= most preteen-attracted adults are not in prison. It’s not fair to make assumptions about the prevalence and disposition of all preteen-attracted adults based on only studying preteen-attracted convicts and ex-convicts.

2. Adamant denial rants are NOT reliable= I don’t know where you’re from, but in my country it is considered very taboo to have ANY attraction to preteens. In fact, people frequently say preteen attracted adults should be killed and tortured … so obviously very few people will publically admit to having an attraction to preteens. Instead, they deny it adamantly... and since everyone denies it, just asking people will NEVER yield accurate results.

Apart from the problems with small numbers and sample populations, this study as reported in the link seems to accord with several others, which I have not seen, but probably can be located. It also doesn't make much sense for such larger numbers since that should be reflected in offences or attitudes within society. You know how paedophilia is viewed - does it really make any sense for all those people to be deceiving themselves? A percentage of about 30% is large enough anyway and this might effect some changes in attitudes if it is truly correct.

To deny is not to refute. I can understand why people might not want such statistics to be true, but science isn't (or shouldn't be) about pandering to what the people want. It's about exploring what is, and why. Whether or not these statistics are accurate is something that scientific endeavours can corroborate or refute. The beauty of science is that one can test and retest findings. If flaws are spotted in a study, then further studies can be performed with these flaws ironed out, in a kind of dialectic process.

How we then live with the results is another matter. People didn't like the notion of a heliocentric universe as opposed to a geocentric one; many still don't like the theory of evolution; I still see plenty of people struggling to accept the idea that the conscious mind or the brain itself might not be the most 'important' aspect of the human organism. Not liking something doesn't make it true or false. One of the poorest arguments I hear touted is in the free will debate, from the libertarian camp: 'but if we don't have free will, then that means murderers aren't responsible for their actions', which is not a refutation but an expression of the libertarian's dislike of the consequences. (I'm not going to go into my own opinions on that particular subject; I'm just highlighting the very human tendency to argue very badly based on what they do and don't want to be the case.)

Is there anything positive we could gain from the above stats if they are accurate? I think so. If a significant number of people (or, at least, men) are attracted to young pubescents and prepubescents, then we can look at what this means for our mythopoeic (myth-making) processes and our handling of the subject of paedophilia (indeed, human sexuality as a whole) and child abuse.

I usually look to anthropology and something like "Game Theory" to understand how we went from monkeys to how we are now. It's a really long story I have told too many times to bother retelling now (short answer: "egoic consciousness" standardized into patriarchy standardized into contract-capitalism). Judging by the sub-text of your post I'm guessing you have a pretty good idea of how and why things are the way they are. You figured out that attraction to juveniles is the norm, and basically harmless; and that the present state of affairs on the social level is deeply ill. (I say 'socially' because at the level of the Universe/God everything is A-Ok; by 'ill' I just mean thinky and suffering.)

Mythic wrote:Apart from the problems with small numbers and sample populations, this study as reported in the link seems to accord with several others, which I have not seen, but probably can be located. It also doesn't make much sense for such larger numbers since that should be reflected in offences or attitudes within society. You know how paedophilia is viewed - does it really make any sense for all those people to be deceiving themselves? A percentage of about 30% is large enough anyway and this might effect some changes in attitudes if it is truly correct.

Mythic

You’re right. Even if it is just 30%, I think most people would be shocked to know that when they say they want to viciously torture/kill all preteen-attracted adults, they would have to kill/torture 700 million people (6.7 billion (world population)*.5 (% male)*.7 (% adult) *.3 (% attracted to under 12) … Or that they would have skin-alive, then burn 1/3 of their male relatives.

I know it seems like I’m carrying on and on… BUT this really bothers me, I think it’s ridiculous that NON-offending people with preteen-attractions are persecuted, stereotypes, and hated. I also find it very hard to believe that most people think preteen girls are unattractive. It’s not just this study, it’s also other things like, for example, the fact that nearly all YouTube videos with preteens are mostly watched by adult men.

I mean seriously, what about them is so ugly and sick. When I look at girls like, for example, AnnaSophia Robb, Victoria Justice, Elle Fanning, Chloe Moretz (even when they were 11yo), I see a beautiful/adorable face and healthy physique. What is it about their appearance that is so sick or ugly?

Maybe people just feel that way because they falsely assume that everyone with an attraction to preteen girls wants to have sex with preteen girls. However, I would argue that this is NOT true. I think one can have an attraction without even having a desire for sex. That’s how I am. I do think preteen girls are attractive, but I do NOT desire sex. In fact, I think sex is gross. I’m a virgin and I never intend to lose my virginity. In fact, I’m so disgusted by explicit sex, that I use parental controls when browsing the net. I’m not really that young, BUT I feel much too young to be watching such material. I do like beautiful women (girls too), but I’d much rather see innocent pictures than sex ones.

I wonder though, if having an attraction, without having any desire for sex is even pedophilia? I mean, don’t hear me wrong, I do admit that the idea of cuddling or something does sounds nice. I also admit that I sometimes get hard when I see a beautiful girl/woman, BUT the whole idea of penetration just seems nasty. It seems weird, and it seems like it would hurt. I'd much rather just meet a nice girl (or woman) I could just hang-out with (watch fun movies, play games, laugh with, educate, go hiking with, listen to, comfort, protect, help, make happy, travel with, etc.). My most controversial thoughts (NOT behavior (in real life I wouldn't/haven't done any of the following things with an underage girl)) involve hugging, cuddling, caressing, and kissing (but NOT sex). So what do you-all think? Is this even pedophilia? Also, I'm attracted to preteens, teens, and fully grown/fully matured adults (e.g., I love Charlize Theron (37yo))